add_contact

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only indicate a mutating, non-destructive operation. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral detail: the contact is created with a random email that must be changed afterward in Invapi. This goes beyond the annotations, though it could say more about side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose comes first, followed by a critical warning, and every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with one boolean parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It highlights the essential post-creation caveat about the random email. A small gap is that it does not explicitly point to update_contact as the follow-up tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%; the only parameter, confirm, is already described as 'Must be true to run the operation.' The description does not add extra meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('add an additional contact'), the target resource ('account'), and even the underlying endpoint (whmcs/add_contact). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_contact, delete_contact, and get_contacts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The usage context is implied: it adds a contact, and the warning about the random email signals when this tool may need follow-up. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over update_contact or mention any exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.